College Perspectives: Hello World | Hacker News Reader

College Perspectives: Hello World

ladycoders.com

21 pointsspider-pig17 comments

This title is a bit misleading. I read it and figured that she was "told" this (that she only got the interview because she's female) by someone who was in a position to know. Only after reading the article did I figure out that the intended meaning is closer to "Stanford CS freshman encouraged to believe she only got Twitter interview because she's female".

EDIT: For the record, I think the actual article is very interesting (much more so than the one I thought I was going to read), and it is this that motivated my comment.

EDIT 2: Aaand now it's been replaced by the article's own headline, which unfortunately tells us almost nothing when taken out of its original context. Sigh.

I came into this article thinking that it was someone at Twitter, probably as part of the interview process, that told her this. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like the title is a bit misleading.

Its not just you. For the record, its some random person at Stanford that said it.

Completely agree. That's some flaming link-bait if I ever saw any.

An arrogant peer told her that (in less words, mind you). Just as unfortunate, but not nearly as egregious as suggested by the title.

Aside from the obvious (and deplorable) sexism, I feel like there's some other flaws in this kid's thinking.

1. Does everyone who gets an interview or gets hired at some recognizable name necessarily do so because they're good at what they do? This kid seems to think that if he got an interview somewhere, it must mean he's good; that only those who have reached his own idea of his own skills can reach it. He's not yet learned that incompetent programmers get hired all the time, even at the companies you might look up to as a college kid.

2. While he's trying to justify his mental model of #1 above (if you got the interview, you must be worthy, or else ...), did he not think to ask questions like "maybe you just got that interview because of Stanford"? Not sure why he jumps straight to gender, when there are a bunch of other screwed up and not necessarily justified factors that can impact your ability to get your foot in the door.

All the comments so far are about the title. But I am wondering something that may be related (but not directly about the OP): is it fair to point out when some individual did indeed get a large advantage in admissions/internships/scholarships because of gender/race?

For example, at the University of Michigan, native americans / blacks / hispanics gets a 20 points boost over whites / asians / indians. This is their published policy. I feel like we shouldn't have to pretend that everyone got in based on merit, when it is clear that some genders/races get a bonus.

Apologies if this is too sensitive of an issue to discuss openly. I am from outside the United States and we do not typically have these conversations.

It is absolutely not too sensitive of an issue to discuss openly. If we can't talk about it, it just festers and creates anger.

The problem with this kind of thing is the the people that got in solely on merit assume that people who fit into any of those categories got in without having any merit. This is rarely true except in the case where it is extremely difficult to find that particular set of things.

When that assumption is there, people are treated differently. It's often not even on a conscious level. It's going over to help the new female that showed up at a meetup assuming she needs help getting started with Python - while ignoring the 5 new males that came in before her. It's assuming that the black woman over there got her job because who ever heard of a black coder? She probably sucks at it.

Discussing it is different than dismissing someone's accomplishments because they appear to be privileged.

If you say that the title of this post is misleading, you are trivializing the experience of this young woman. She is finding out that all her colleagues at Stanford in computer science are telling her that she is only getting job interviews at prestigious companies because she's female, and you think that the problem here is that there's a single word wrong in a post title on Hacker News? Priorities, people.

My apologies; I certainly didn't mean to trivialize it at all. My intention was exactly the opposite; I almost didn't follow the link because I figured the story at the other end was unlikely to be more than hearsay and/or mudslinging. But I did read it (mainly because I recognized the ladycoders.com domain name), and was surprised to find a brief but excellent observation about how easy it is for women to conspire against their own self-interests. That's the part that should be in the headline.

I fully agree that we need more women in technical fields and that the social stigmas that work against this should be slowly eliminated. (Slowly because it can't happen instantaneously, not because slower is better.)

However, I'm going to disagree with something with a little bit of the other stuff. Let's assume that "I knew I wasn’t very good at CS..." is true, and that this isn't just modesty. Then work harder and learn more and practice more and code more and study more! Make yourself good at CS! Don't let yourself use your gender as a crutch or let it hinder you. Earn what you get because of what you know and can do. Don't accept the 'special treatment' you claim you are getting because you are a woman.

Perhaps I'm missing the main point the article's trying to make. If anyone wants to give a concise to the point couple sentence summary I'd appreciate it.

Women are stringently socialized to be modest, far more so than men, particularly in domains that are seen as "men's work". So your starting assumption isn't very safe. And while "work harder and learn more" is good advice, it's generic advice! Everyone should be doing that, all the time. Even if you're at the top of your CS class; you won't stay there if you rest on your laurels. Finally, there's no reason to think that she used her gender as a crutch.

It's very easy for anyone to feel that they're getting special treatment when they get their first professional job. Breaking into a field, any field, frequently requires pulling strings, taking advantage of connections, or just plain good luck. I know I certainly did when I got my first programming job. When that happened, my peers congratulated me and expressed confidence that I would quickly prove to my employer that they were right to hire me. Not one person speculated to my face that I probably got the job just because I was an upper-middle-class white male. Even though they would have been FAR more justified making that (obnoxious and unfounded) assumption than the one described in this article.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com